The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About69 Development Permit 411 Shenandoah Ph 2SHENANDOAH PHASE TWO FINAL DRAINAGE ANALYSIS City of COLLEGE STATION BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS MARCH J ~ J 995 (AMENDED MAY 11 I 1995) PREPARED BY.· McCLURE ENGINEERING, INC 1722 BROADMOOR, SUITE 210 BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 CERTIFICATION I, Michael R. McClure, Registered Professional Engineer No. 32740, State of Texas, certify that this report for the drainage design of SHENANDOAH PHASE TWO, was prepared by me in accordance with the provisions of the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards for the owners thereof. DESCRIPTION INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS PRIMARY DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION GENERAL CONCEPT TABLE A CONCLUSION EXHIBITS MASTER DRAINAGE MAP DRAINAGE COMPUTATIONS HEC-1 COMPUTER PRINTOUT FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP EXCERPT 100 YEAR OVERFLOW @ WINDFREE CULDESAC 100 YEAR OVERFLOW @ TIFFANY KNUCKLE PAGE NO. 1 1 2 4 4 II A II "B" "C" "D" "E" "F" INTRODUCTION: FINAL DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FOR SHENANDOAH PHASE TWO In keeping with the drainage plan submittal re~irements of the City of College Station Storm Water Management Plan, this drainage analysis is prepared to demonstrate that the proposed subdivision is planned within the guidelines of the Storm Water Management Ordinance. The study includes the drainage analysis for the stormwater detention requirements of both Phases Two and Three of the SHENANDOAH development. PRIMARY DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION: The proposed site is located in the southern portion of Colleg-e Station along the southeast line of Barron Road and approximately 500 feet from state Highway Six. The site is contiguous to the SHENANDOAH PHASE ONE subdivision to the southeast. To the northeast of the site are several small parcels in various stages of development. Northwest of this phase is the future SHENANDOAH PHASE THREE. The site is sparsely wooded with 1% to 5% slopes. Some grading has been conducted on the site with development of the SHENANDOAH PHASE ONE subdivision in 1983. No offsite stormwater flows to or across this site. According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Brazos County, Texas and Incorporated Areas, Map Number 48041C0205 C, effective July 2, 1992, no portion of this property is located in a special flood hazard area (see Exhibit "D"). The site drains into two major tributaries of Carter's Creek. The northern portion of the site drains to the north into the Barron Road right-of-way through existing drainage structures and into the South Fork of Lick Creek. The smaller southern portion of the site consisting of approximately 0.9 acres drains to the south into Tiffany Trail and Windfree Drive. This stormwater runoff enters the existing storm drain system at the low point inlets southwest of the Windfree Drive /Southern Plantation Intersection. No portion of the flows are conveyed to the existing detention pond in SHENANDOAH PHASE ONE. The increase in runoff coefficient of this area is offset by a minor alteration in the drainage divides to force as much flow as possible to the north and the proposed detention pond in Phase Two. GENERAL CONCEPI': The flows will be divided as shown on the attached Drainage Plan (See Exhibit "A"). The areas flowing to the existing SHENANDOAH PHASE ONE subdivision are altered to eliminate the impact of this phase of the subdivision on t~e existing system. The existing system was built with the intent of providing drainage outlets for this area, but is inadequate for this purpose. With the improvements of Phase One, no storm drains were left accessible and all flows entering the existing SHENANDOAH PHASE ONE area must be overland sheet and gutter flows. Gutter capacity in -2- existing streets was designed to handle a five year storm and is substantially below our current standards. These facts limit the amount of flow which can be allowed toward this direction. Because of these conditions, the drainage divides in this and future phases are shifted to minimize the amount of storm water which flows into the existing SHENANDOAH infrastructure. Flows to the north will be intercepted by the proposed streets designed with grades that are adequate to convey the flows to a storm drain system (see Exhibit "B"). The system is designed to convey the ten year storm underground and the 100 year storm within the rights-of-way and easements to the proposed detention pond in Phase Two. See Exhibits "E" and "F" for Overflow Calculations at Low Point Inlets. The proposed pond is sized to detain (post development flow </= predevelopment flow) the two, five, ten, twenty-five, fifty, and one hundred year scs Type II storms. See Table "A" for a summary of peak flow data at the Study Point (the 18" RCP Culvert at the Wilson Plumbing Driveway). Note that the peak discharges for each storm event have been significantly reduced at the study point. This plan was adopted in order to alleviate an existing restriction (the severely undersized 18 11 RCP culvert) which is the limiting factor in the design of this drainage system. The driveway culvert crossing of the Barron Road ditch line accommodates less than the existing two-year storm. As an indication of how undersized this culvert is, the culvert immediately downstream of this one (with a nearly identical flow) -3- is a 27" RCP (46% more area). The pond will have excellent access from Barron Road and is designed with low maintenance outlet structures (std. sloped headwall, 15 11 RCP, 20' earthen overflow weir, and an 8' wide berm with 4: 1 side slopes) . The pond as designed will have 0.5' of free board for the 100 year storm, and no flows in the overflow weir during the 25 year storm. The following Tables are a summary of Peak discharges from HEC-1 modeling of scs Type II Storms (Exhibit "C"). TABLE A STORM PREDEVELOPHENT FLOW PROPOSED FLOW (YEAR) (CFS) (CFS) 2 27 18 5 47 24 10 61 27 25 78 32 50 91 35 100 106 50 Table B is a Summary of Peak Discharges at the Study Point located downstream of the Detentioin Facility (at existing 18" RCP at Wilson Plumbing). STORM (YEAR) 2 5 10 25 50 100 TABLE B PREDEVELOPMENT FLOW (CFS) 27 47 61 78 91 106 -4- DET. POND SUMMARY Discharge from Pond (CFS) 11 13 14 15 22 36 CONCLUSION: The drainage plan outlined above satisfies the requirements of the City of College Station Storm Water Management Plan. The proposed infrastructure has been properly sized and the peak discharge from the proposed development has been reduced for the full range of storm events thereby lessening the impact on downstream facilities. -5- 1ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt t t t Mll HYDmAPll PACKAGE (HEM) t t K!Y 1991 t VERSIOi 4.0.lE t t Lahey F'771-EN/32 version 5.01 t t Dodson & Associates, Ioc. t t RUH DATE 03/13/95 TillE 21:49:14 t FJIIIBIT C tttttttttttttt ttttttttttttttttttttttttt t t U.S. AR!Y CORPS OF EllGimRS t t HYDROID;IC FlGIIEF.RIIG CEllTER t 609 SECORD STRm t t DAVIS, CALIFORru 95616 t t ( 916) 551-17 48 t t t ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt t t ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt 1 x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x mxm mxx x xx x xxxxx x x x xxx THIS PROGRAI REPLACES ALL PRKVIOUS VERSIORS OF HEM KHOO AS HF.Cl (JAR 73), HEClGS, HEClDB, AHO HF.Cm. mil DEFIDTHllS OF VARIABLF.5 -RTIKP-AKO -RTIOR-HAVE CllAl!GED FRal 'IBOSE USFD wrm 'IBE 1973-STYLE lJPOT 5'TROC'roRE. THE DEFillmOR OF -Am-OH RIHARD KAS CllAl!GED TITH REVISIOHS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FORTRAH77 VERSION liE'lf OPTIONS: DAMBREAK O!J'l'FUI SUBllERGEXCE , SIIGLE EVERT DAK!GE CAIA.'UI..\TIOI, DSS:WRITE STAGE FRJIJ,lUEXCY, DSS:RF.AD TIIE SERIES AT DESIRED CALCUIJ.TIOR mERVAL WSS RATE:GREE!i AND Al!PT INFILTRATI(l( KDIEK!TIC WAVE : liE'lf FIDTE DIFFEREKCE Au;()Rl'm!I HEc-1 IllPllT PAGE 1 LillE ID ••••••• 1 ....... 2 ....... 3 ••••••• 4 ....... 5 •••.... 6 ....... 7 ••••• , .8 .•..... 9 ...... 10 1 ID mST SHEKANOOAJI 2 IT 2 OI.AIX;94 0000 720 3 IO 5 0 0 4 JP 2 5 JR PRF.C 11 9.8 8.8 7.4 6.2 4.5 6 KK LICK 7 KK Pl= EX P2=PROP. 8 BA .0305 1 9 PB 1 10 Ill 30 01A{x;94 00 00 11 PC .0053 .0108 .0164 .0223 .0284 .0347 .0414 .0483 .0555 .0632 12 PC .0712 .0797 .0887 .09 84 .1 089 .1203 .1328 .1467 .1625 .1 808 13 PC .2042 .2351 .2833 .6632 • 7351 .7724 .7989 .8197 .8380 .8538 14 PC .8676 .8 801 .8914 .9 019 .9115 .9206 .929 1 .9371 .9446 .951 9 15 PC .9588 .9653 .9717 .9777 .9836 .9892 .9947 1.000 16 LS 0 75 0 17 UD .37 18 KP 2 19 LS 0 1 0 20 UD .37 21 KK PROP 22 BA .0247 23 LS 0 1 0 24 UD .27 25 KP 2 26 LS 0 84 0 27 UD .27 28 KK coo 29 HC 2 30 KK POND PROP DETENTION POND 31 RN 32 KP 2 33 RS 1 FWi -1 34 SA 0 .248 .681 1.037 1.239 1.327 l.U3 35 SE 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 36 SL 283 1.227 .7 .5 37 SS 288 20 3 1.5 38 KK BYP~ 39 BA .0061 40 LS 0 1 0 41 UD .51 42 KP 2 43 LS 0 84 0 44 UD .39 1 ~-1 IllPllT PAGE 2 LillE ID .....•. 1 ....... 2 .•....• 3 ....... 4 .••.... 5 ...•••. 6 ....... 7 ....... 8.,, .... 9 ...... 10 45 46 47 KK BARROH HC 2 zz lttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt t t t FI.OXl HIDmAPll PACKAGE (~-1) t t 1IAY 1991 t VERSICI 4.0.lE t t Lahey F77L-tJ/32 version 5.01 t t Dodson & Associates, Inc. t t RUX DATE 03/13/95 TI!E 21:49:14 t ttttttttttttttttttt**tttttttttttttttttttt ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt t t t U.S. !RKY CORPS OF EXGIIEERS t t HYDROL(X;IC EllGINEERIJG CENTER t t 609 smo STREET t t DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 t t (916) 551-1748 t t t ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt 1 EXIST SHOOHOOAI! 3 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPR11T 5 PRINT COlf'mOL IPim 0 PUl'l' COBTROL QSCAL 0 • HYDRo:;RAPH PUl'l' SCALE IT HYDRCGRAPH mE DATA Hllill 2 XINlJ'OO I! COOll'l'ATION ImRVAL ID!TE l!UG94 STARTIXG DATE ITil!E 0000 STARTillG mE HQ 720 HUXBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDDI!~ NDD!TE l!UG94 F.HDIHG DATE RDTIME 2358 ENDING mE ICEllT 19 CFJmJRY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0.03 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 23. 97 HOURS ENGLISH UHITS DRAIHAGE ARP.A PRECIPITATIOH DEPTH LEKGT!I, ELEVATIOI Fim STORAGE VOUlME SURFACE ARP.A m!PERA?llRE S®ARE KILES I!CHES FEET CUBIC mr PER mlHD ACRE-FEET ACRES D~ FAllREllHEIT JP KllLTI-PW OPTION NPW 2 NUMBER OF PI.MIS JR KllLTI-RATIO OPTION RATIOS OF PRECIPITATION 11.00 9.80 8.80 7.40 6.20 4.50 PEAK M AHO STAGE (EllD-OF-PERIOD) SUllXARY FOR KIJLTIPLE PW-RATIO F.COHOOC COOUTATIOHS FWIS II CUBIC FEET PER SECORD, ARP.A Ill SQUARE IILES mE TO PFAK II HOURS RATIOS APPLIED TO PRECIPITATION OPER!TIOH STATIOH ARP.A PW RATIO 1 RATIO 2 RATIO 3 RATIO 4 RATIO 5 RATIO 6 11.00 9.80 8.80 7.40 6.20 4.50 llYDmAPll AT + LICK 0.03 1 M 106 . 91. 78. 61. 47. 27. TIME 11.70 11. 70 11. 70 11.70 11.70 11. 70 2 M o. o. o. o. o. 0. mE 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 HYDR(WllJI AT + PROP 0.02 1 FUlW o. o. o. o. o. 0. TIME 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 2 M 108. 95. 84. 68. 54. 35. TIME 11.60 11.60 11.60 11.60 11.60 11.60 2 Ca!BINED !T + cam 0.06 1 M 106. 91. 78. 61. 47. 27. mE 11.70 11.70 11.70 11.70 11.70 11. 70 2 FlJM 108. 95. 84. 68. 54. 35. Tm: 11.60 11.60 11.60 11.60 11.60 11.60 ROUTm> TO + POND 0.06 1 M 106. 91. 78. 61. 47. 27. TillE 11.70 11. 70 11.70 11.70 11.70 11.70 2 FlJM 36. 22. 15. 14. 13. 11. TillE 12.07 12.23 12.37 12.30 12.23 12.10 tt PF.AK STAGES IN FEET tt l STAGE 0.00 0.00 o.oo o.oo 0.00 0.00 TillE o.oo o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 STAGE 288.47 288.22 287.83 287 .15 286.56 285.66 TIME 12.07 12.23 12.37 12.30 12.23 12.13 HYDROORAPH AT + BYPASS 0.01 l M o. o. o. o. o. o. Tl!E 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 M 23. 20. 18. 15. 12. 7. 'Tl!E 11.70 11. 70 11.70 11.70 11.70 11.70 2 CCl!BINED AT + BARROM 0.06 l M 106. 91. 78. 61. 47. 27. TillE 11.70 11.70 11.70 11.70 11. 70 11.70 2 FlJM 50. 35. 32. 27. 24. 18. TIME 11.97 11.73 11.73 11.73 11.73 11.77 ttt HORMAL E11D OF HEC-1 ttt ZONE X 0 0 ZONE X 0 ::z:: l-a:: 0 z Brazos County Unincorporated Areas 481195 EXHIBrr ''E" TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL ANALYSIS NORMAL DEPTH COMPUTATION May 8, 1995 SHENANDOAH PHASE TWO OVERFLOW SECTION B-B 100 YEAR OVERFLOW AT WINDFREE CUL-DE-SAC (lots 14 & 15, Block 17) ====================~=======~======================================= PROGRAM INPUT DATA: DESCRIPTION Flow Rate (cubic feet per second) ••••••••••••••••••..••• Channel Bottom Slope (feet per foot) ••••••••••••••••.••• Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n-value) ••••••••••..••• Channel Side Slope -Left Side (horizontal/vertical) •••• Channel Side Slope -Right Side (horizontal/vertical) ••• Channel Bottom Width (feet) ••.•••••••••••••••••••••..••• VALUE 18.1 0.0100 0.0300 4.00 4.00 10.0 ==================================================================== PROGRAM RESULTS: DESCRIPTION Normal Depth (feet) •••••••••..•••.••••••••••••••••...••• Flow Velocity (feet per second) ••••••••••••••••••••..••• Froude Number (Flow is Sub-Critical) •••••••••••••••..••• Velocity Head (feet) ••••••••..••••••••••••••••••••..•••• Energy Head (feet) .•••••.••••.•••••••••••••••••••••.••.• Cross-Sectional Area of Flow (square feet) •••••••••..••• Top Width of Flow (feet) •••••.•••••••••••••••••••••..••• VALUE 0.52 2.87 0.759 0.13 0.65 6.30 / 14.17 V ==================================================================== TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL ANALYSIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, Version 1.3 (c) 1986 Dodson & Associates, Inc., 7015 W. Tidwell, tl07, Houston, TX 77092 (713) 895-8322. A manual with equations & flow chart is available. 100 Year Flow = 57.88 CFS 10 Year Flow = 39.8 CFS overland Flow = 18.1 CFS EXHIBIT ''F" TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL ANALYSIS NORMAL DEPTH COMPUTATION May 8, 1995 SHENANDOAH PHASE TWO OVERFLOW SECTION B-B 100 YEAR OVERFLOW AT TIFFANY KNUCKLE (lots 8 & 9, Block 17) =========================~================================~========= PROGRAM INPUT DATA: DESCRIPTION Flow Rate (cubic feet per second) •.•••••••..•.•••.•••... Channel Bottom Slope (feet per foot) •...•••.••••••.•.•.. Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n-value) ••.••••••••••.. Channel Side Slope -Left Side (horizontal/vertical) ••.. Channel Side Slope -Right Side (horizontal/vertical) •.. Channel Bottom Width (feet) .••..•••••••.•.•..•••••.•••.. VALUE 12.4 0.0160 0.0300 4.00 4.00 6.0 ==================================================================== PROGRAM RESULTS: DESCRIPTION Normal Depth (feet) ••.••••••.•..•••••••••...••••••••••.. Flow Velocity (feet per second) ••••••••••.•.••.•••••••.. Froude Number (Flow is Sub-Critical) .••.••..••••••.•••.. Velocity Head (feet) ...•.•......••••••..••...•••••.•••.. Energy Head ( feet) ••...••.....•..•••••••••..•••••••.••.. Cross-Sectional Area of Flow (square feet) •.••••••••••.. Top Width of Flow (feet) ••.••••••••••••••••.••••••••••.. VALUE 0.48 3.29 0.935 0.17 0.64 3.77 9.82 ==================================================================== TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL ANALYSIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, Version 1.3 (c) 1986 Dodson & Associates, Inc., 7015 W. Tidwell, il07, Houston, TX 77092 (713) 895-8322. A manual with equations & flow chart is available. 100 Year Flow = 40.19 CFS 10 Year Flow = 27.8 CFS Overland Flow = 12.4 CFS ,...,'-'"-' .._._, ...;.....I ---. --- Figure Xll Application Form Development Permit Inside/Outside Established Flood Hazard Areas City of College Station, Texas (re: Ordinance No. 1728) Site Legal Description: _ __:s:..:HENANOO:=:-=-=-=-=-!AH=.-::P:...::HAS::::..::::.::E;__::.'IID;.;.:._ ____________________ _ Site Address: Extension of Tiffany Trail 3887 High I.Dnesome Address: College Station, TX 77845 Telephone No.: _..L7.L76~8J..l,2;..i..61..1o6,__ ____ _ Owner: EDWARD FROEH1ING ~1 Add 1722 Broac]m:x)r, Suite 210 ~ Michael R. McClure, P .E. . ress: ~ran, TX +7802 Engineer: __ McCL __ URE __ ENG __ INEERING ____ ,.__IN_C_. ________ Telephone No.: --t7..1-7n6:.J6Q...7u.0,1.1.01------- Drainage & Utilities: P.O. Box 4905 Con tractor: -FI-T...,I._.OIT ....... _.a:J>....,....,~sm~ .... rJ._cr ...... I ..... O ..... ti...,~,.---...Th.t'O~ ..... c...-. _______ Address: .13;ryan, TX -;z 7 gg 5 Telephone No.: _ __u69.2JOu.=-..7u.Ou7-L1 ____ _ Date Application Filed:---------------Approved:------------ Application is hereby made for the following specific waterway alterations: SOUI'H FORK OF LICK CREEK Attached as part of this application: G{J Application Fee 60 Signed Certificate O Site and Construction Plans, with supporting documentation : two (2) copies of each 0 Other: ---~~---------~--- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS : I, ___ EIM_:ARD __ FR!_O_EHL_ING _____ __, as owner, hereby acknow ledge or ~ffirm that: The above Drainage Plan and supporting documents complies wiht the requir e ments of Ordinance No. 1728, and Date Devel ~ '.~ ~Z>~ Contractor Date Page 1of2 ... / ./ .. Figure XII Continued CERTIFICATIONS: A I, certify that any nonresidential structure on or proposed to be on this site as part of this application meets flood-proofing requirements as set out in Section of Ordinance No. 1728 Architect/Engineer Date B. I, certify that the finished floor level of the lowest floor, including any basement, of any residential structure as part of this application is or proposed to be at or above the base flood elevation as established in the latest Federal Insurance Administration flood hazard study and maps, as amended. Architect/Engineer Date C. I, Michael R. McClure, P .E. , certify that the alterations or development covered by this permit shall not diminish the flood-carrying capacity of the adjoining waterway or crossing this permitted site and that such alterations or development are consistent with requirements concerning encroachments of floodways and of floodway fringes as illustrated in the latest Fede Insurance Study. ~dv__ D. I, do certify that any alterations, addressed in Certification "D" do not raise the level of 100-year flood as referred to Certification "B". Architect/Engineer Date· REVIEWED FOR APPROVAL: -----="-....,....,-,..-....,......,......,....---Floodplain Administrator Date APPROVAL: Special conditions or comments as part of approval:----------- Final Plat Checklist (For Submittal Acceptance) D Plat D Engineering Drawings (with ALL details) • water • sewer • streets • drainage (including detention, if applicable). • erosion control D Drainage report per drainage ordinance D Starting July 15th -an acceptance letter from TNRCC for sewer and water (if applicable) 0 Engineer's Estimates 0 Forinal Oversize Participation Request Figures based on Engineer's Estimate (if applicable) r:t.~ $300 .00 Subdivision Inspection Fee ';/;?~ $100.00 Drainage Development Pennit Fee & Co~pleted Application 0 Soil Testing Fee Schedule (as established by· Engineer of Record) & Fee EDWARD FROEHLING 3887 HIGH LONESOME CO LLE GE STATION , TX 77845 (409) 776-8266 6~'firn6~E City of College Station FIRST AMERICAN BANK BRYAN , TX 77 805 88-232/1131 24379 5/29 /95 $***** 1c)c).00 One Hundred and 00 /100*************************************************************** Drainage Development Permit MEMO Shenandoah.: Phase II 11• 0 2 l. j r g 11• I: Ii Ii j Ii 0 2 j 2 g I: EDWARD FROEHLING 3887 HIGH LONESOME COLLEGE STATION , TX 77845 (409) 776-8266 6~'fi~~6~E City of Col l ege Station FIRST AMERICAN BANK BAY AN, TX 77 805 88-232/1131 24380 5/29/95 $*****300 .0 0 Three Hundred and 00 /100 ************************************************************* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ DOLLARS Subdi v ision Inspections MEMO Shenandoah: Phase II 11• 0 2 L. 3i 8 0 11 1 I: Ii Ii j Ii 0 2 j 2 g I: ACCOUNT NO. 3 6 5 2 9 7 CITY $-?~LEGE WTION <f-'L3 19 C/0 iisl~/{i) . - :EcE1vEooF , .dd CJ[Jf2Q h Lwc:r;; / / / /--. ---- ' R ~ 1fiot --- ------· ----·--· • -~~CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ ENGll'EERING DIVISION Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3570 InterOffice Memo To: KENT LAZA From: ·,. .~ ~-. ' . . ~ VERONICA AND~.A¥ANTHA <'J'h Date: May 22, 1995 Subject: SIDEWALK LOCATIONS In the recent past, we have had problems with water/sewer service line conflicts with sidewalks because of our requirement for the 4' wide sidewalk to be 6' away from the curb . The problem is that there is not enough ROW to fit the meter or wye behind the sidewalk and still be in the ROW . So to alleviate this problem we have allowed some developers to place the sidewalk 4' away from the curb . This still gives us the aesthetics we are trying to maintain with a "larger grass area" between back of curb and sidewalk, but we don't get 6'. We don't see this as a problem . Please let us know if we should continue in this manner or try to solve it in another way . CC: DA YID DOBBS, JERRY JONES, JANE KEE, SABINE KUENZEL, PAUL LEVENTIS, JOHN LOGAN, BRETT McCULL Y, JENNI McDERMOTT, ST ACY SLA WINSKI , NAT ALIE THOMAS , SHIRLEY VOLK, VERN WRIGHT • McCLURE ENGINEERING, INC.------- May 10, 1995 TEXAS NATIONAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 Attn: Sasha Earl PERMITTING SECTION/WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIVISION RE: SHENANDOAH, PHASE TWO COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS Dear Mr. Earl: As per TNRCC Regulations, attached for your review and approval, please find the following items for the above referenced submittal for SHENANDOAH, PHASE TWO subdivision construction in College station, Texas: 1. TNRCC Chapter 317.2-"Gravity Line Submittal Application" 2. Specifications for Sanitary Sewer Construction 3. Plan Sheets 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, S2 and S4 of the Construction Plans We request that you review this application at your earliest convenience and provide the required approval so that this project can be constructed upon completion of the City's approval process. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. Very truly R. McClure, P.E., R.P.L.S. MRM/mlm xc: Mrs. Veronica Morgan, P.E. Assistant City Engineer CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 1722 Broadmoor , Suite 210 • Bryan , Te xas 77 802 • (4 09 ) 776 -6700 • FAX (4 09) 776-6699 • McCLURE ENGINEERING, INC.---------.... May 11, 1995 Mrs. Veronica Morgan, P.E. Assistant City Engineer CITY OF COLLEGE STATION P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 RE: SHENANDOAH, PHASE TWO Dear Veronica: Attached please find the following items for the above referenced project for Edward Freehling in the SHENANDOAH Subdivision: 1. Copy of Letter to TNRCC for Gravity Line Submittal 2. One (1) set of construction plans, revised per City staff comments 3. Two (2) sets of original construction plans with staff red-lined comments (to be returned to our off ice after completing verification of revisions) 4. Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate 5. Amended Drainage Analysis 6. Amended Impact Studies (10/4/94) I will submit additional sets of construction plans after your review and verification that all revisions have been satisfactorily completed. Should you have any questions, please advise. Very ~h:el MRM/mlm attachments b:\d ata\shenan 2 .rvn urs, cClure, P.E., R.P.L.S. 1722 Broadmoor, Suite 21 O • Bryan , Texas 77802 • (409) 776-6700 • FAX (409) 776-6699 --_ -=-~--_ ---~----_----~------~~--- a:!] ··"ffi DATE: TO: ATTN: 5/26/95 McCLURE ENGINEERING, INC. 1722 Broadmoor, Suite 210 Bryan, Texas 77802 ( 409) 7 .76-6700 FAX 776-6699 TRANSMITTAL LETTER Mrs. Veronica Morgan, P.E. Assistant City Engineer CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ATTACHED PLEASE FIND: 1. Seven (7) additional sets of Construction for SHENANOOAH PHASE TWO Four (4) for City's use (for a total of five) Three (3) to be returned to our offi e when the have been s with the City's "Approval" (Please ca when the are read ) THESE ARE TRANSMITTED TO YOU FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: For Approval Your Use Revisions Made As Requested For Review and Comment Returned after Loan to Us RECEIVED BY: DATE: SIGNED BY: MICHAEL R. McCLURE, P.E., R.P.L.S. - --_______ ._ TO: FROM: RE: DATE: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION LEGAL DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENU E COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 764-3507 MEMORANDUM Veronica Morgan , Asst. City Engineer f 5 Pete Shively, Assistant City Attorney Shenandoah Phase II -deed restrictions January 16 , 1996 BACKGROUND RECEIVED JAN 1 7 1996 In 1983 , Shenandoah Joint Venture developed the subdivision known as Shenandoah Phase I. At that time a "Declaration of Covenants , Conditions , and Restrictions" was filed on 159.382 acre tract "including Shenandoah Phase I". Recently , the developer has platted Shenandoah Phase II directly adjacent to Phase I. This additional subdivision area includes a designated drainage detention pond facility , which the developer has labeled a "common area" to be owned and maintained by the existing homeowner's association , the Southern Plantation Homeowner's Association. The developer, in an apparent effort to avoid the additional legal fees usually commiserate with the preparation and filing of new deed restrictions , has told City staff that the original deed restrictions filed in 1983 are sufficient to empower him to dedicate this land to the existing homeowner's association and thus impress the maintenance costs and responsibilities upon that association. City staff is concerned, however , that the existing homeowner's association may at some point balk at the idea of taking on the maintenance costs of this additional drainage detention area. The staffs concern is that the area be maintained by some group and that the City not be left "holding the bag" while the developer and the homeowner's association resolve the meaning and effectiveness of the 1983 deed restrictions as to this additional area. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Do the 1983 deed restrictions include the area now being platted as Shenandoah Phase II? ps/c/jan 96/sh enan.doc 01116196 Memo to Veronica Morgan January 16 , 1996 P a ge2 2. If so , do the 1983 deed restrictions allo w the developer to dedicate additional common areas such as this detention pond to the existing homeowners' association and require them to maintain it? 3. If not, do the 1983 deed restrictions allow the developer to add "additional land" to the original area and then require the existing the homeowners' association to take title to and responsibility for a detention pond? ANSWERS 1. Yes , the deed restrictions filed in 1983 do include the area that is now being platted as Shenandoah Phase II. The legal description of the property covered by those deed restrictions was attached as Exhibit A to the deed restrictions. That legal description describes a large 159 acre tract and only excludes 3 small (1 and 2 acre) tracts from that description (I think that these three smaller tracts now make up the Reserve Tracts A & B on the front of the plat of Shenandoah Phase I). The 159 acre tract does include land north of the platted area of Shenandoah Phase I to Barron Road. This appears to be the area where Shenandoah Phase II is being located. 2. This is unclear. The area now being platted as Shenandoah Phase II is included within the deed restrictions , but this land is neither "Common Properties" nor "Additions to Existing Property" as those terms are both used in the deed restrictions. Rather, the land appears to be a third category: namely , "property" that is later platted and of which a portion is then denominated as "common property." The developer could argue that there is no specific date limitation to the definition of common property in the deed restrictions and that the term should apply to any "common property" regardless of when it is so designated . The problem with this approach , ho w ever, is that in another section of the deed restrictions it states: " .... the Developer hereby covenants for itself, its successors and assigns , that it shall convey any Common Properties to the Association not later than December 31 , 1986." Article IV , Section 2, page 5. If this term is applied or added to the definition of Common Property, then land designated as Common Property after December 21 , 1986 cannot be "Common Property" as the term is used in the deed restrictions. Conversely , if the foregoing term is not applied or added to the definition but held to be binding upon the developer for all Common Property, then the developer has breached this term of the deed restrictions and may be liable to the homeo w ners' association for damages. p s/c/jan9 6/shenan.doc 0 1116196 t • ~ .., Memo to Veronica Morgan January 16 , 1996 Pa ge 3 On the other hand , if the detention pond area is not treated at all as common property but rather as "additional property" under the deed restrictions , the developer could simply make it subject to the same deed restrictions "by filing of record a Supplementary Declaration of covenants and restrictions with respect to the additional property." Article II , Section 2 , page 3. Thus it would appear that either the developer has breached his promise to convey the common property to the homeowners association by December 21 , 1986 or he needs ~o file a Supplementary Declaration" for the "additional property." Because of this ambiguity , and the potential problems that it may produce, I suggest that you require the developer to execute a brief development agreement that would include a "hold harmless" clause for the City. Such an agreement could be simply a one page document that recites the parties , the date , the facts and the ambiguity arising from them . Thereafter, it would be an agreement on the part of the de v eloper to indemnify the City in the event of any costs , claims , etc. arising out of this issue and the City's promise in return would be waive assurance of compliance with whatever ordinance or design standard is implicated by the maintenance of the drainage pond--or to agree that with the hold harmless agreement that the developer has met the requirements of the implicated design standard. The "key" here , however, is to carefully identify what specific design standard or city ordinance the developer is in danger of violating by not resolving this ambiguity: e.g., Article XI , Section D ,2,d,(2)c. of the City's "Drainage Policy & Design Standards , which requires the "Final Drainage Report" to include a discussion of the "maintenance access and aspects of the design.". In any event, please let me know if you want any additional help in drafting such a development agreement for this project. 3. Because the detention pond area is covered by the old deed restrictions , this question is moot , but if it were outside of the existing deed restrictions , the developer could add them to the current deed restrictions but only by filing a "Supplementary Declaration" document at the courthouse. See first paragraph on this page for additional discussion of this issue. p s/c/jan96/shenan. doc 01 116196